You do live in the US. You just pretend to be Irish; it's quite clear from your use of American spelling, total ignorance of British, Irish or European culture and for that matter most of European history that you're not from the UK or Ireland. You've got a hard-on over American pseudo-libertarianism and the constitutional rights of US citizens so the only rational conclusion is that you're a yank.

theadmiral

Not everyone who believes in the right to bear arms is a "gun toting redneck". Quite the contrary. The "gun toting redneck" population just has a louder voice than the rest of us. I find it slightly ignorant to assume that all of us who believe we have an undeniable right to defend ourselves with firearms are rednecks who just want to get-off on shooting someone.

Talk to any of these guys for more than a minute and its all about how many rounds the gun holds, how much stopping power it has, taking pictures of guns and posting them like it is some sort of accomplishment, carrying it on their waist into walmart or any other store, whatever. The quiet gun owner who keeps one locked away at home for an emergency does exist, but it is the minority. You can find it as ignorant as you like. I'll typecast any gun owner who carries one around town, boasts about what make and model he has, and how he has a "solution" for any thug and robber as a gun toting redneck. Go read any firearm thread on any forum to see what i'm talking about, or talk to any gun owners (anyone who tells you they have one and openly brings it up all the time is the type of person im describing).

Frank Brown

Not everyone who believes in the right to bear arms is a "gun toting redneck". Quite the contrary. The "gun toting redneck" population just has a louder voice than the rest of us. I find it slightly ignorant to assume that all of us who believe we have an undeniable right to defend ourselves with firearms are rednecks who just want to get-off on shooting someone.

Talk to any of these guys for more than a minute and its all about how many rounds the gun holds, how much stopping power it has, taking pictures of guns and posting them like it is some sort of accomplishment, carrying it on their waist into walmart or any other store, whatever. The quiet gun owner who keeps one locked away at home for an emergency does exist, but it is the minority. You can find it as ignorant as you like. I'll typecast any gun owner who carries one around town, boasts about what make and model he has, and how he has a "solution" for any thug and robber as a gun toting redneck. Go read any firearm thread on any forum to see what i'm talking about, or talk to any gun owners (anyone who tells you they have one and openly brings it up all the time is the type of person im describing).

You're describing a minority. Think about what you just said, "Go read any firearm thread on any forum to see what I'm talking about." That's like going into the Westboro Baptist Church and complaining how all Christians are bigots and racists, or walking into an Al-Qaeda recruitment center and complaining about all Muslims being terrorists. You're making generalizations based on what you see from a small number of people on forums or the few gun owners you've probably talked to. The quiet gun owner, which is the majority, not the minority (my father and myself being two of them, but wholeheartedly believe in the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms) are usually not the ones to frequent firearm forums unless our ownership of said firearms is being threatened.

Going into a firearm thread or talking to a gun owner and then complaining about pictures of the gun, specifications (stopping power, rate of fire, etc.) doesn't make much sense.

Hitler did this in 1938, look what happened, he killed millions of people!

Hey, this is exactly how the Third Riech did it. So creepy, Barry. Very Maoist. comments, sorry, but I think if 200 folk showed up at the Patriots Rally Nov 19, No one will be resisting the gun collection. Matt Bracken excellent info. So armchair warriors start chatting.

This government would be much more aligned to the muslim brotherhood than any Jewish organization.

Step one is gun confiscation. Step two is rounding up all white conservative males and ushering us into the FEMA camps. Isn't Obamarx's Amerika glorious, comrade? Forward!

The comments under the article are retarded. And some of them are comparing U.S citizens to jews living in nazi germany. They don't have history classes over there ?

Please americans choose what obama is. He can't be a muslim/commie/maxist/dictator/nazi/KGB spy/bin laden at the same time

theadmiral

You're describing a minority. Think about what you just said, "Go read any firearm thread on any forum to see what I'm talking about." That's like going into the Westboro Baptist Church and complaining how all Christians are bigots and racists, or walking into an Al-Qaeda recruitment center and complaining about all Muslims being terrorists. You're making generalizations based on what you see from a small number of people on forums or the few gun owners you've probably talked to. The quiet gun owner, which is the majority, not the minority (my father and myself being two of them, but wholeheartedly believe in the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms) are usually not the ones to frequent firearm forums unless our ownership of said firearms is being threatened.

Going into a firearm thread or talking to a gun owner and then complaining about pictures of the gun, specifications (stopping power, rate of fire, etc.) doesn't make much sense.

I'll keep typecasting 90 percent of gunowners, I couldn't care less how you rationalize you and your father carrying guns around.

You do realize that people from many countries find it absolutely shocking and scary to come here because of people like you, right? And I don't mean that to be offensive. Just speaking from a more worldly standpoint. Some Australians I do business with are absolutely terrified about it when they come over here. And it is genuine terror. There is less crime in plenty of countries without the right to defend yourself with firearms.

Mr. House

You do live in the US. You just pretend to be Irish; it's quite clear from your use of American spelling, total ignorance of British, Irish or European culture and for that matter most of European history that you're not from the UK or Ireland. You've got a hard-on over American pseudo-libertarianism and the constitutional rights of US citizens so the only rational conclusion is that you're a yank.

Ah sh*t son Sivis coming at you with both barrels now, hide your daughters.

Frank Brown

You're describing a minority. Think about what you just said, "Go read any firearm thread on any forum to see what I'm talking about." That's like going into the Westboro Baptist Church and complaining how all Christians are bigots and racists, or walking into an Al-Qaeda recruitment center and complaining about all Muslims being terrorists. You're making generalizations based on what you see from a small number of people on forums or the few gun owners you've probably talked to. The quiet gun owner, which is the majority, not the minority (my father and myself being two of them, but wholeheartedly believe in the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms) are usually not the ones to frequent firearm forums unless our ownership of said firearms is being threatened.

Going into a firearm thread or talking to a gun owner and then complaining about pictures of the gun, specifications (stopping power, rate of fire, etc.) doesn't make much sense.

I'll keep typecasting 90 percent of gunowners, I couldn't care less how you rationalize you and your father carrying guns around.

You do realize that people from many countries find it absolutely shocking and scary to come here because of people like you, right? And I don't mean that to be offensive. Just speaking from a more worldly standpoint. Some Australians I do business with are absolutely terrified about it when they come over here. And it is genuine terror. There is less crime in plenty of countries without the right to defend yourself with firearms.

You don't seem to understand. If the only people you hear talking about firearms are the "gun toting rednecks" (which I acknowledge, they exist) then you'll form the opinion that the majority of firearm owners are in fact gun toting rednecks. You said it yourself, the responsible gun owners don't usually talk about their firearms, so you're not hearing their side. You're not hearing them say, "I'd shoot that thug if he walked withing 10 yards of me!" because that's not their mentality. You're only hearing the crazy minority and deciding in your head that they're the majority.

theadmiral

You don't seem to understand. If the only people you hear talking about firearms are the "gun toting rednecks" (which I acknowledge, they exist) then you'll form the opinion that the majority of firearm owners are in fact gun toting rednecks. You said it yourself, the responsible gun owners don't usually talk about their firearms, so you're not hearing their side. You're not hearing them say, "I'd shoot that thug if he walked withing 10 yards of me!" because that's not their mentality. You're only hearing the crazy minority and deciding in your head that they're the majority.

I've met enough of them to be totally justified in having that opinion, and I won't change my mind about it. Sure, responsible gun owners exist. The majority are a disgrace who are just looking for a reason to use it, and have a power trip by carrying it around.

Frank Brown

You don't seem to understand. If the only people you hear talking about firearms are the "gun toting rednecks" (which I acknowledge, they exist) then you'll form the opinion that the majority of firearm owners are in fact gun toting rednecks. You said it yourself, the responsible gun owners don't usually talk about their firearms, so you're not hearing their side. You're not hearing them say, "I'd shoot that thug if he walked withing 10 yards of me!" because that's not their mentality. You're only hearing the crazy minority and deciding in your head that they're the majority.

I've met enough of them to be totally justified in having that opinion, and I won't change my mind about it. Sure, responsible gun owners exist. The majority are a disgrace who are just looking for a reason to use it, and have a power trip by carrying it around.

You're allowed to have that opinion, of course, but I think it's an ignorant and heavily biased one because you're making an assumption based on a handful of people you've met.

theadmiral

You're allowed to have that opinion, of course, but I think it's an ignorant and heavily biased one because you're making an assumption based on a handful of people you've met.

And I won't change my mind about that.

The entire world feels your stance is ignorant, outside of this country. I'll happily be classified as ignorant by American gun owners who frequent firearms rights forums and stay within the realm of civility with everyone else.

Frank Brown

You're allowed to have that opinion, of course, but I think it's an ignorant and heavily biased one because you're making an assumption based on a handful of people you've met.

And I won't change my mind about that.

The entire world feels your stance is ignorant, outside of this country.

The entire world? Doubtful. And they don't like my belief that I should be able to own a firearm? That's good for them! Me owning a firearm doesn't effect the hypothetical Australian you were talking about, he/she isn't forced to come to America and they're not forced to like what I like.

Mr. House

You're allowed to have that opinion, of course, but I think it's an ignorant and heavily biased one because you're making an assumption based on a handful of people you've met.

And I won't change my mind about that.

The entire world feels your stance is ignorant, outside of this country.

The entire world? Doubtful. And they don't like my belief that I should be able to own a firearm? That's good for them! Me owning a firearm doesn't effect the hypothetical Australian you were talking about, he/she isn't forced to come to America and they're not forced to like what I like.

I have to say however, that America very much has an odd relationship with guns that the rest of the world has never had. The rest of the world generally has managed to not fall into tyrannical dystopias without their citizens being armed to the teeth and many countries in the rest of the world has been in a much worse situation than America has in relation to government tyranny.

theadmiral

The entire world? Doubtful. And they don't like my belief that I should be able to own a firearm? That's good for them! Me owning a firearm doesn't effect the hypothetical Australian you were talking about, he/she isn't forced to come to America and they're not forced to like what I like.

Frank Brown

The entire world? Doubtful. And they don't like my belief that I should be able to own a firearm? That's good for them! Me owning a firearm doesn't effect the hypothetical Australian you were talking about, he/she isn't forced to come to America and they're not forced to like what I like.

Hypothetical, huh? That hurts!

You have no real Australian business partner! DON'T LIE.

I have to say however, that America very much has an odd relationship with guns that the rest of the world has never had. The rest of the world generally has managed to not fall into tyrannical dystopias without their citizens being armed to the teeth and many countries in the rest of the world has been in a much worse situation than America has in relation to government tyranny.

Is that true? During the second World War, wasn't most of Europe under the control of totalitarian regimes (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Fascist Italy?) which prohibited, or at least significantly reduced private firearm ownership? Now, I'm not saying anything of the sort would happen in a modern republic such as the United States. I don't believe we're headed on a course toward National Socialism or Stalinist Communism, but there have been Constitutional violations in recent decades that have increased federal power while also reducing citizen's rights (particularly, the NDAA comes to mind.) I don't believe you'd see a totalitarian take-over, just strong violations of the rights of the people.

Mr. House

The entire world? Doubtful. And they don't like my belief that I should be able to own a firearm? That's good for them! Me owning a firearm doesn't effect the hypothetical Australian you were talking about, he/she isn't forced to come to America and they're not forced to like what I like.

Hypothetical, huh? That hurts!

You have no real Australian business partner! DON'T LIE.

I have to say however, that America very much has an odd relationship with guns that the rest of the world has never had. The rest of the world generally has managed to not fall into tyrannical dystopias without their citizens being armed to the teeth and many countries in the rest of the world has been in a much worse situation than America has in relation to government tyranny.

Is that true? During the second World War, wasn't most of Europe under the control of totalitarian regimes (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Fascist Italy?) which prohibited, or at least significantly reduced private firearm ownership? Now, I'm not saying anything of the sort would happen in a modern republic such as the United States. I don't believe we're headed on a course toward National Socialism or Stalinist Communism, but there have been Constitutional violations in recent decades that have increased federal power while also reducing citizen's rights (particularly, the NDAA comes to mind.) I don't believe you'd see a totalitarian take-over, just strong violations of the rights of the people.

Actually no, this is not true. Prior to World War II Germany was subject to the Versailles treaty, which forbid any German from owning any kinds of gun under punishment of Jail and payment of 100,000 Marks. shortly before WWII the Nazi party removed this law, allowing deregulated purchasing of rifles and shotguns, only regulating handguns. The gun ownership age reduced from 20 to 18, and Nazi Party members, hunting license members and Government workers were completely exempt from gun laws. This law stayed until the end of the war. The gun laws were increasingly tighter right up unitl Germany reformed as one country in 1990. As for Russia, well the Russians barely even had gun laws. Anyone who could afford a gun owned one, and the only legislation restricting guns only affected Russian officers prior to the Officer corp purge, just before 1930.

Now as for America, yes civil liberties have went down the drain thanks to 9/11, but that has occurred worldwide and again, has had little relation to gun ownership worldwide.

I think you might have missed my point though. What I was saying is that America has a completely odd relationship with guns that almost doesn't apply to the rest of the world. From an observer looking in, it's very strange.

Oh, I have no idea about facist Italy, but I know a bit about Sicily and the majority of Sicilians who could afford it openly owned guns during WWII, despite very heavy anti mainland sentiment.

Crazyeighties

Not getting into the gun thing, but I did want to point out something of a flaw in your logic.

If you want to wave the second amendment around, I'm not sure you can if you are arguing about the capacity of ammo a gun can have since back when the second amendment was drafted all guns only fired one hand packed shot at a time.

The Pizza Delivery Guy

My response to gun control: Prohibition only worked once. All the things governments have tried to limit, or constrain regulations of, has never ended with reduction of said product's usage. The war on drugs has led to a rapid increase of the imprisoned, prohibition of alcohol in the 20's led to gang violence and bootleggers. It doesn't work.

Mr. House

My response to gun control: Prohibition only worked once. All the things governments have tried to limit, or constrain regulations of, has never ended with reduction of said product's usage. The war on drugs has led to a rapid increase of the imprisoned, prohibition of alcohol in the 20's led to gang violence and bootleggers. It doesn't work.

Okay well this is false. Generally in places where gun laws are increased, gun ownership falls and gun crime falls dramatically.

Frank Brown

The entire world? Doubtful. And they don't like my belief that I should be able to own a firearm? That's good for them! Me owning a firearm doesn't effect the hypothetical Australian you were talking about, he/she isn't forced to come to America and they're not forced to like what I like.

Hypothetical, huh? That hurts!

You have no real Australian business partner! DON'T LIE.

I have to say however, that America very much has an odd relationship with guns that the rest of the world has never had. The rest of the world generally has managed to not fall into tyrannical dystopias without their citizens being armed to the teeth and many countries in the rest of the world has been in a much worse situation than America has in relation to government tyranny.

Is that true? During the second World War, wasn't most of Europe under the control of totalitarian regimes (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Fascist Italy?) which prohibited, or at least significantly reduced private firearm ownership? Now, I'm not saying anything of the sort would happen in a modern republic such as the United States. I don't believe we're headed on a course toward National Socialism or Stalinist Communism, but there have been Constitutional violations in recent decades that have increased federal power while also reducing citizen's rights (particularly, the NDAA comes to mind.) I don't believe you'd see a totalitarian take-over, just strong violations of the rights of the people.

Actually no, this is not true. Prior to World War II Germany was subject to the Versailles treaty, which forbid any German from owning any kinds of gun under punishment of Jail and payment of 100,000 Marks. shortly before WWII the Nazi party removed this law, allowing deregulated purchasing of rifles and shotguns, only regulating handguns. The gun ownership age reduced from 20 to 18, and Nazi Party members, hunting license members and Government workers were completely exempt from gun laws. This law stayed until the end of the war. The gun laws were increasingly tighter right up unitl Germany reformed as one country in 1990. As for Russia, well the Russians barely even had gun laws. Anyone who could afford a gun owned one, and the only legislation restricting guns only affected Russian officers prior to the Officer corp purge, just before 1930.

Now as for America, yes civil liberties have went down the drain thanks to 9/11, but that has occurred worldwide and again, has had little relation to gun ownership worldwide.

I think you might have missed my point though. What I was saying is that America has a completely odd relationship with guns that almost doesn't apply to the rest of the world. From an observer looking in, it's very strange.

Oh, I have no idea about facist Italy, but I know a bit about Sicily and the majority of Sicilians who could afford it openly owned guns during WWII, despite very heavy anti mainland sentiment.

Regarding the Germans: Didn't they heavily restrict firearms for the Jewish people around 1938? And what about the countries that they invaded? Were the occupants of France, Denmark, etc. allowed to own firearms? It would make sense to allow your greatest supporters to possess firearms and to limit the possession of those who oppose you.

But this really isn't too relevant and I'm going off on a tangent which will probably lead to this thread getting derailed.

Mr. House

The entire world? Doubtful. And they don't like my belief that I should be able to own a firearm? That's good for them! Me owning a firearm doesn't effect the hypothetical Australian you were talking about, he/she isn't forced to come to America and they're not forced to like what I like.

Hypothetical, huh? That hurts!

You have no real Australian business partner! DON'T LIE.

I have to say however, that America very much has an odd relationship with guns that the rest of the world has never had. The rest of the world generally has managed to not fall into tyrannical dystopias without their citizens being armed to the teeth and many countries in the rest of the world has been in a much worse situation than America has in relation to government tyranny.

Is that true? During the second World War, wasn't most of Europe under the control of totalitarian regimes (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Fascist Italy?) which prohibited, or at least significantly reduced private firearm ownership? Now, I'm not saying anything of the sort would happen in a modern republic such as the United States. I don't believe we're headed on a course toward National Socialism or Stalinist Communism, but there have been Constitutional violations in recent decades that have increased federal power while also reducing citizen's rights (particularly, the NDAA comes to mind.) I don't believe you'd see a totalitarian take-over, just strong violations of the rights of the people.

Actually no, this is not true. Prior to World War II Germany was subject to the Versailles treaty, which forbid any German from owning any kinds of gun under punishment of Jail and payment of 100,000 Marks. shortly before WWII the Nazi party removed this law, allowing deregulated purchasing of rifles and shotguns, only regulating handguns. The gun ownership age reduced from 20 to 18, and Nazi Party members, hunting license members and Government workers were completely exempt from gun laws. This law stayed until the end of the war. The gun laws were increasingly tighter right up unitl Germany reformed as one country in 1990. As for Russia, well the Russians barely even had gun laws. Anyone who could afford a gun owned one, and the only legislation restricting guns only affected Russian officers prior to the Officer corp purge, just before 1930.

Now as for America, yes civil liberties have went down the drain thanks to 9/11, but that has occurred worldwide and again, has had little relation to gun ownership worldwide.

I think you might have missed my point though. What I was saying is that America has a completely odd relationship with guns that almost doesn't apply to the rest of the world. From an observer looking in, it's very strange.

Oh, I have no idea about facist Italy, but I know a bit about Sicily and the majority of Sicilians who could afford it openly owned guns during WWII, despite very heavy anti mainland sentiment.

Regarding the Germans: Didn't they heavily restrict firearms for the Jewish people around 1938? And what about the countries that they invaded? Were the occupants of France, Denmark, etc. allowed to own firearms? It would make sense to allow your greatest supporters to possess firearms and to limit the possession of those who oppose you.

But this really isn't too relevant and I'm going off on a tangent which will probably lead to this thread getting derailed.

Well yes, Jews were not allowed any type of guns, but I don't think that is relevant to the idea that gun laws change in relation to how authoritarian a government is. Gun laws were the least of the problems of jews, and other enemies of the state were allowed to have guns legally. The nazis were not hugely popular with people who were not members and the majority of Germans were not Nazi party members, so the laws didn't just affect their greatest supporters.

As for axis controlled countries, generally laws of occupied countries were similar to that of germany itself or were down to the puppet government left behind. However in general, th rule of law meant very little, and of course there was no buying a weapon if you were a french peasant in occupied europe.

I have to apologise though, apparently I lied. There was extensive confiscation in Russia for land owners during the collectivisation, due to the fact it fell under property rights. It was very badly instigated though and only really affected urban areas. Besides which, it was a part of sweeping decreases in civil liberties during that time, and in relation to all other laws made gun ownership laws quite irrelevant, being as the majority of people couldn't afford guns anyway.

If I have to make a sweeping point here, it's this. Gun laws are really the least important thing to be worrying about in relation to civil liberties. If a case ever occurs where Liberties are swept away in America, owning a gun will be the least of your issues.

Chunkyman

It's important to note that people who favor gun control are in no capacity anti-gun, in fact they're very much pro-gun. They of course need guns to enforce their policies (gun control or otherwise), so they're very enthusiastic about gun ownership, provided that it's centralized gun ownership in the hands of the state. But that's not so bad I suppose, I mean it's not like states have murdered a hundred and fifty million people or so during the last century, so what could possibly go wrong?

Mr. House

It's important to note that people who favor gun control are in no capacity anti-gun, in fact they're very much pro-gun. They of course need guns to enforce their policies (gun control or otherwise), so they're very enthusiastic about gun ownership, provided that it's centralized gun ownership in the hands of the state. But that's not so bad I suppose, I mean it's not like states have murdered a hundred and fifty million people or so during the last century, so what could possibly go wrong?

Do you ever have anything of value to say or is it all just badly executed rhetoric?

Finn 7 five 11

It's important to note that people who favor gun control are in no capacity anti-gun, in fact they're very much pro-gun. They of course need guns to enforce their policies (gun control or otherwise), so they're very enthusiastic about gun ownership, provided that it's centralized gun ownership in the hands of the state. But that's not so bad I suppose, I mean it's not like states have murdered a hundred and fifty million people or so during the last century, so what could possibly go wrong?

Yeah because the Police and Military in Australia just go around shooting people willy nilly right? And because everyone having to the opportunity to get into firefights with authority is a good thing right? Pointless and poorly executed rhetoric right back at ya.

Seriously, have you ever seen what happens when police in Australia kill someone? Holy sh*t is it a firestorm and a half, Christ, it stays on the front pages for weeks and everyone just hates on the police, people get kicked out of the police force for that stuff, it's hardly authority doing whatever the f*ck they want just because they have guns and we don't.

It goes against the second amendment. Scary stuff.

And the Second Amendment is 200 years old, like someone mentioned, that was written when slavery was Okay, i'm sure it's possible to update policies relating to that considering the time period it was written in and we know now what works and what doesn't work so well.

The Yokel

The founding fathers were clear on it, you cant argue for gun control without being anti American. Simple as that.

That's simply not true. But even if it were, so f*ckin' what? It doesn't mean they were right. They were people. People say stupid sh*t all the time. Take you for example.

Is every right wing nutter as stupid as you? You just take centuries old words without any context and interpret them as you please in the 21st century. What the founding fathers said has to be interpreted in the context of the time that they lived in, and the socio-political situation in the country.